[EL] ELB News and Commentary: 6/26/2013
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Wed Jun 26 14:20:04 PDT 2013
"Voting Rights Ruling a Blow to Big Firms' Pro Bono Push"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52247>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52247>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
A fascinating angle on the impact of Shelby County ...to BigLaw
<http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleALD.jsp?id=1202608412415&Voting_Rights_Ruling_a_Blow_to_Big_Firms_Pro_Bono_Push>.
There have been many Shelby County reaction pieces in the last two days.
This is not one I saw coming.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52247&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%20Ruling%20a%20Blow%20to%20Big%20Firms%E2%80%99%20Pro%20Bono%20Push%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |Comments Off
"Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling Will Tighten Ethics And Campaign
Finance Laws" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52245>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52245>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Huff Po on theethics and campaign finance impact
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-gay-marriage-ruling_n_3455017.html>of
the DOMA ruling.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52245&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20Gay%20Marriage%20Ruling%20Will%20Tighten%20Ethics%20And%20Campaign%20Finance%20Laws%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,ethics
investigations <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42> |Comments Off
DOMA v. Shelby County v. Fisher <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52243>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:13 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52243>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
BothAri Berman
<http://www.thenation.com/blog/174989/supreme-courts-constitutional-hypocrisy#axzz2XMB6OZfS>andDashiell
Bennett
<http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/scalia-doma-vs-vra/66623/>find
reason to question Justice Scalia'sextensive critique
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307#writing-12-307_DISSENT_5>of
the judiciary's "jaw-dropping" disregard of its "respected co-ordinate
branches" in today's invalidation of a Congressional statute.
To be clear, there was a serious issue of standing in today's DOMA
decision that wasn't precisely present in/Shelby County/(Shelby County
faced concrete injury, even if there was reason to question its
propriety in bringing a facial challenge), but there were serious
standing issues in/Fisher/that received nary a mention. And all three
cases involved judicial review of a considered legislative decision.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52243&title=DOMA%20v.%20Shelby%20County%20v.%20Fisher&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |Comments Off
The Shelby County SCOTUSblog commentary series
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52241>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:12 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52241>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Each of the entries in the SCOTUSblog commentary series on Shelby County
is worth a look. The full series is up here, and I'm honored to have
taken part:
Rick Pildes
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/shelby-commentary-what-does-the-courts-decision-mean/>
Jeff Harris
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/the-court-meant-what-it-said-in-northwest-austin/>
Ellen Katz <http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/how-big-is-shelby-county/>
Rick Hasen
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/the-curious-disappearance-of-boerne-and-the-future-jurisprudence-of-voting-rights-and-race/>
Ilya Shapiro
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/supreme-court-recognizes-jim-crows-demise-restores-constitutional-order/>
Justin Levitt
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/shadowboxing-and-unintended-consequences/>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52241&title=The%20Shelby%20County%20SCOTUSblog%20commentary%20series&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
The Slate "breakfast table" on Shelby County
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52239>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:11 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52239>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Everyone finds something not to like.
Walter Dellinger
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/the_supreme_court_s_voting_rights_ruling_is_a_fundamental_distortion.html>
Judge Richard Posner
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/the_supreme_court_and_the_voting_rights_act_striking_down_the_law_is_all.html>
Emily Bazelon
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/roberts_and_the_voting_rights_act_the_chief_justice_s_stealthy_plan_to_destroy.html>
Eric Posner
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/supreme_court_on_the_voting_rights_act_chief_justice_john_roberts_struck.html>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52239&title=The%20Slate%20%E2%80%9Cbreakfast%20table%E2%80%9D%20on%20Shelby%20County&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
"House panel to vote on whether IRS official waived her rights"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52237>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:11 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52237>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Looks like the House Oversight Committeehas scheduled a Friday vote
<http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/307739-house-oversight-to-vote-on-whether-irs-official-waived-rights>on
whether Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights in her May 22
opening statement.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52237&title=%E2%80%9CHouse%20panel%20to%20vote%20on%20whether%20IRS%20official%20waived%20her%20rights%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> |Comments Off
Automatic voter registration <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52235>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:10 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52235>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Steven Hill
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/so-the-voting-rights-act-is-gutted-what-can-protect-minority-voters-now/277232/>,
in the Atlantic, calls for states to enact automatic voter registration
in the wake of Shelby County.
The Oregon House, apparently,was listening
<http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2013/06/universal_voter_registration_b.html>.
It passedthis bill
<http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measures/hb3500.dir/hb3521.b.html>,
empowering the Secretary of State to register individuals interacting
with a government agency (and subject to an opt-out) if age, residency,
and citizenship information establishes that they are qualified and not
already registered.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52235&title=Automatic%20voter%20registration&description=>
Posted invoter registration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |Comments Off
"Supreme Court ruling sets stage for voter ID battle"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52233>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:10 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52233>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/supreme-court-voter-id-voting-rights-93396.html?hp=t1_3>on
Shelby County and photo ID.
More on topic fromMississippi
<http://www.sunherald.com/2013/06/25/4758096/mixed-reaction-from-miss-to-voting.html>.
TheNew Republic
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113620/why-supreme-court-was-wrong-gut-voting-rights-act>also
has a piece on individuals seeking ID in South Carolina. Note: I don't
see a legal reason why yesterday's decision should change South
Carolina'sexisting interpretation
<http://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SC-v.-US-Ruling.pdf>of
its law, allowing individuals with a "reasonable impediment" to
acquiring a photo ID to cast a valid ballot after completing an affidavit.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52233&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20ruling%20sets%20stage%20for%20voter%20ID%20battle%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted invoter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |Comments Off
"4 Effects of Voting Rights Ruling on 2014 Midterms"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52231>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52231>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Shira Toeplitz at Roll Calllooks at the impact
<http://atr.rollcall.com/4-effects-of-voting-rights-ruling-on-2014-midterms/>of/Shelby
County/on the next election cycle.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52231&title=%E2%80%9C4%20Effects%20of%20Voting%20Rights%20Ruling%20on%202014%20Midterms%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
The Media Cycle and the Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52229>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52229>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Neil Siegel,here at Balkinization
<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/06/constitutional-choreography.html>,
continues thediscussion of the timing
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=51930>of the Supreme Court's end of term,
and media reaction. He says:
My experience has been that, as of 10 AM this morning, no one in the
news media has wanted to talk about the Roberts Court's monumental
invalidation of the heart of the Voting Rights Act.
. . .
If the Court had wanted to manipulate public opinion, it could not
have ordered the opinions any more skillfully.
I take Neil's point. And I understand that the media respond to the
news cycle, and that in any given news cycle, attention will immediately
shift respond to breaking national news. But I can't believe that the
displacement is anything but temporary. And I really can't believe that
public discussion and digestion of major constitutional cases depends on
the vagaries of the immediate news cycle. If it does, that speaks far
more to a broader (and immensely serious) societal problem than to the
need to reorder the way that Supreme Court opinions are handed down.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52229&title=The%20Media%20Cycle%20and%20the%20Supreme%20Court&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |Comments Off
Shelby County and Alaska redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52227>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:06 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52227>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
This report
<http://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/voting-rights-act-decision-may-speed-up-alaska-redistricting/article_3ebb647a-de37-11e2-b17d-0019bb30f31a.html>begins:
"The Alaska Constitution, not federal law, will now reign supreme in the
ongoing work of the Alaska Redistricting Board as it draws an election
district map."
Sort of. There's still section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (not to
mention the federal constitution), though I don't know whether any of
the Alaskan minority populations are sufficiently sizable or compact to
be protected by section 2.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52227&title=Shelby%20County%20and%20Alaska%20redistricting&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Voting Rights
Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |Comments Off
Daily Show and Colbert Report on Shelby County
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52225>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:06 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52225>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Daily Showhere
<http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-25-2013/the-supreme-court---the-voting-rights-act>.
Colbert Reporthere
<http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/427485/june-25-2013/scotus-on-1965-voting-rights-act>,
andhere
<http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/427489/june-25-2013/peniel-joseph>(interviewing
Prof.Peniel Joseph <http://www.penielejoseph.com/>)
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52225&title=Daily%20Show%20and%20Colbert%20Report%20on%20Shelby%20County&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
More Shelby County news and reactions
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52222>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:05 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52222>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Associated Press
<http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/212942451.html>USA
Todayeditorial
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/editorials/2013/06/25/voting-rights-act-supreme-court-editorials-debates/2456173/>Chicago
Tribuneeditorial
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-voting-20130626,0,2714705.story>Boston
Globeeditorial
<http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/06/25/voting-rights-decision-blow-fair-elections/A87RfSjAmyG2cpNJNKh3aJ/story.html>Wall
St. Journal (news
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323469804578521363840962032.html>andeditorial
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324637504578567380502446560.html>,
andhere
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323683504578567973106997266.html>on
the impact in New York)
LA Times
<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-voting-rights-20130626,0,7112443.story>Miami
Herald
<http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/25/3469760_p2/supreme-courts-voting-rights-act.html>(on
the impact in Florida)
Roanoke Times
<http://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/2034290-12/voting-rights-ruling-leaves-virginia-in-limbo.html>(on
the impact in Virginia)
Democracy Now
<http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/26/supreme_court_guts_voting_rights_act>(with
Rev. Jesse Jackson, Thomas Saenz, and Ari Berman)
Edward Blum
<http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/25/supreme-courts-vra-decision-a-win-for-our-system-of-government/>,
in the Daily Caller
Adam Cohen
<http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/25/voting-rights-decision-spells-the-end-of-fair-elections/?iid=op-main-lead?iid=tsmodule>,
in Time
Ross Douthat
<http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/when-congress-abdicates/>,
in the New York Times
Minister Leslie Watson Malachi
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-watson-malachi/on-voting-rights-more-bri_b_3498974.html>,
in HuffPo
Rick Ungar
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/25/scotus-voting-rights-decision-hurls-nation-back-to-its-tragic-past/>,
in Forbes
Dan Walters
<http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/26/5524211/dan-walters-a-dominant-federal.html>,
in the Sacramento Bee (on the impact on California)
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52222&title=More%20Shelby%20County%20news%20and%20reactions&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
Campaign Legal Center on the Wyoming disclosure case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52220>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:02 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52220>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Release here
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2174:june-26-2013-tenth-circuit-upholds-disclosure-laws-in-free-speech-v-fec-&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>aboutthis
decision <http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-8033.pdf>in Free
Speech v. FEC that I mentionedyesterday
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52192>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52220&title=Campaign%20Legal%20Center%20on%20the%20Wyoming%20disclosure%20case&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |Comments Off
Presidential Commission on Election Administration materials
available <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52218>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 2:02 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52218>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Thevideo recording
<http://www.supportthevoter.gov/2013/06/21/pcea-meeting-june-21-2013/>of
the first (June 21) meeting of the Presidential Commission on Election
Administration is now up online, withaccompanying slides
<https://www.supportthevoter.gov/files/2013/06/PCEA-Public-Meeting-Presentation-6_21_2013.pptx>.
The next meeting is scheduled forFriday, June 28
<http://www.supportthevoter.gov/2013/06/12/pcea-announces-public-meeting-on-friday-june-28-2013/>,
in Coral Gables, FL.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52218&title=Presidential%20Commission%20on%20Election%20Administration%20materials%20available&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
|Comments Off
Reactions to Shelby County: more Pildes
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52215>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 12:45 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52215>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Here, in theDaily Beast
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/26/the-precedent-behind-the-court-s-vra-decision.html>:
The Supreme Court's decision holding unconstitutional
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-voting-rights-act.html> a
part of the Voting Rights Act
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/the-supreme-court-s-ruling-and-the-end-of-the-civil-rights-era.html> (VRA)
is one of most symbolically charged decisions in the court's
history. First enacted in 1965, the part of the law the Court today
struck down today---Section 4---was critical in breaking the back of
the massive disfranchisement of African-Americans in the South that
had been locked into place since the 1890s. This part of the Act
had created a regime wholly unique in American history. From 1965,
those states and local governments that had massively disfranchised
these voters could not make any change at all to any aspect of their
voting systems---changes as small as the hours polls were open, to
changes as big as how election districts for Congress, the state
legislature, and local governments were designed---without getting
the federal government's approval in advance. In essence, this
system froze Southern electoral arrangements into place until the
federal government approved any changes. The federal government
then sent federal voter registration officials into the South to
take over registering voters, and this system began the process of
tearing down discriminatory barriers to the vote.
Over the years, Congress remained the key actor. The question was
how long this regime would remain in place and how it would be
adapted over time to changing circumstances. . . .
Morehere
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/26/the-precedent-behind-the-court-s-vra-decision.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52215&title=Reactions%20to%20Shelby%20County%3A%20more%20Pildes&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
Reactions to Shelby County: Noah Feldman
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52212>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 12:39 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52212>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Hiscolumn
<http://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-supreme-court-voter-rights-feldman-column-vra-20130625,0,6924817.column>begins:
The civil rights era ended Tuesday --- or at least that's what the
historians will say about the U.S. Supreme Court
<http://www.mcall.com/topic/crime-law-justice/justice-system/u.s.-supreme-court-ORGOV0000126.topic>'s
5-4 decision to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965
<http://www.mcall.com/topic/politics/government/voting-rights-act-of-1965-EVGAP00065.topic> as
unconstitutional.
Congress
<http://www.mcall.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131.topic> enacted
that law --- one of the two crown jewels of the civil rights
movement --- because blacks were being denied access to the vote
through unfair state-imposed tests in the still-segregated South.
Passed a century after the Civil War ended, the law represented a
sincere attempt by Congress to make the 15th Amendment's right to
vote actually meaningful.
By striking down that law as an outmoded infringement on states'
rights, the court has flipped the rules once and for all: The
justices, and not the elected Congress, now decide what remedy is
needed to effectuate the most basic right in a democracy. . . .
Morehere
<http://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-supreme-court-voter-rights-feldman-column-vra-20130625,0,6924817.column>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52212&title=Reactions%20to%20Shelby%20County%3A%20Noah%20Feldman&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
Jonathan Weiler on Chief Justice Roberts
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52209>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 12:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52209>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Reflecting
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/chief-justice-roberts-and_b_3503768.html>on
confirmation hearings and /Shelby County/.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52209&title=Jonathan%20Weiler%20on%20Chief%20Justice%20Roberts&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |Comments Off
Why Justice Kennedy's DOMA Opinion Has Its Unique Legal Structure
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52205>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 10:06 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52205>byRichard Pildes
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
Justice Kennedy's pathbreaking opinion mixes structural constitutional
principles -- federalism -- with individual rights principles -- equal
protection/ due process -- into a unique blend that leads to Section 3
of DOMA being unconstitutional. Why this mixed blend? Why not decide
the case on either the structural basis or the individual rights basis
alone?
First, if the case were decided on straight due process/equal protection
grounds, it would be very difficult for the decision not to rest on a
logic that would compel the conclusion that states are constitutionally
obligated to permit same-sex marriage. The very reasons that would make
it unconstitutional for federal law to prefer traditional marriage --
reasons of morality, or tradition, or related ones -- would be the very
same reasons states would rely on to defend their laws that prefer
traditional marriage. Thus, those state laws would be likely to fall
from any straightforward ruling solely on individual rights grounds that
DOMA Section 3 violates equal protection/due process. Whether Justice
Kennedy wants to get there some other day or not, he doesn't want to
pre-commit now to that ultimate decision. Thus, all of the emphasis on
constitutional principles of federalism are a way of tempering that more
bald and direct equal protection/due process holding. The federalism
emphasis potentially cabins the decision only to DOMA itself, without a
logic that would lead directly to an affirmative constitutional
obligation for all states to permit SSM (Dissenting, Justice Scalia
argues the equal protection/due process rationale still remains clear
enough as to logically compel the conclusion that SSM is
constitutionally required). That's why Justice Kennedy does not decide
the case on a more direct individual rights basis. That is also partly
why his opinion does not even address the much-disputed issue over
whether the proper standard of review here is heightened scrutiny or
rational basis review.
Second, why then not decide the case on direct structural grounds that
DOMA violates constitutional principles of federalism, to which Justice
Kennedy is strongly drawn? Because he recognizes that to hold DOMA
unconstitutional solely as an intrusion on traditional state areas of
control would be a greatly destabilizing innovation in constitutional
doctrine. A vast amount of federal law regulates in areas that
traditionally and historically were under state control. So Justice
Kennedy is not prepared to go down the pure structural route of
federalism alone.
By holding DOMA unconstitutional because of some mix of
federalism/individual rights constitutional principles -- without very
directly concluding that it violates either federalism alone or equal
protection/due process alone -- we have a classic Justice Kennedy
decision. He has cobbled together a doctrinal resolution that does not
commit to the more dramatic proposition that SSM is constitutionally
required, or to the dramatic federalism principle that Congress has no
power to override states in areas of traditional state control, while
also reaching the conclusion that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.
Justin blogged about the decision on this site earlier and I've posted
this here, even though it's not necessarily the most appropriate site
for this. I would normally post this at the Balkinization Blog, but for
some reason, I can't get the mechanics to work for blogging there
today. Hence this post.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52205&title=Why%20Justice%20Kennedy%E2%80%99s%20DOMA%20Opinion%20Has%20Its%20Unique%20Legal%20Structure&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> |Comments Off
Reactions to Shelby County: Bob Bauer
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52200>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 9:07 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52200>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Bobassesses
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2013/06/shelby-v-holder/>the
Roberts Court's take on federalism in the elections arena. It begins:
Barely had the Court issued its opinion in the /Shelby County,
Alabama/ v. Holder, invalidating Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act
and for all practical purposes Section 5, when the State of Texas
promptly announced
<http://www.sos.state.tx.us/about/newsreleases/2013/062513.shtml> a
new photo ID requirement. And the Court's reasoning in this and
other cases in recent years, including the freshly minted
Arizona/ v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona/, 570 U.S. ____(2013),
leaves little doubt that it is emboldening states to proceed on the
path of the last few years, imposing ID and other limitations on
access to the polls.
The Roberts opinion in /Shelby County/ is short: 24 pages in all,
which seems a fairly crisp, summarily delivered blow to a landmark
voting law. Striking is the emphasis on the rights of states to
legislate electoral restrictions with a freer hand. Right from the
beginning, the Chief emphasizes that the remedy provided by Section
5 was "extraordinary" or "drastic" or "dramatic": he applies those
adjectives to the intrusion on the authority of states rather than
to the long and sordid history of voting discrimination. /Shelby
County/, No. 12-96, Slip Op. at 1.
On this point, the Chief bends /Katzenbach v. South Carolina/, 383
U.S. 301, out of recognizable shape. He would have the reader
believe that the case represented on the federal government's part a
stretch---an "extraordinary," "drastic," "dramatic"
action---warranted by exceptional circumstances. Lost in this gloss
on the case is the actual tone and substance of the
/Katzenbach/ Court's position. . . .
Morehere <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2013/06/shelby-v-holder/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52200&title=Reactions%20to%20Shelby%20County%3A%20Bob%20Bauer&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
|Comments Off
BREAKING NEWS: DOMA struck down, Prop 8 case dismissed on standing
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52197>
Posted onJune 26, 2013 7:34 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52197>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
DOMA has been struck down as unconstitutional. Prop 8 case from
California dismissed on standing grounds (initiative proponents have no
cognizable injury distinct from the general population). I haven't yet
read thoroughly, but SCOTUSblog reports that neither finds a
constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
DOMA decision ishere
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf>; Prop 8
ishere <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf>.
Both 5-4, very different majorities. DOMA is Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer,
Kagan, Sotomayor; Prop 8 is Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52197&title=BREAKING%20NEWS%3A%20DOMA%20struck%20down%2C%20Prop%208%20case%20dismissed%20on%20standing&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,voter initiatives
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=61> |Comments Off
An unusual filibuster <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52196>
Posted onJune 25, 2013 11:38 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=52196>byJustin Levitt
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>
Those of you who went to bed early on the east coast to get a bit of
rest for SCOTUS missed a wild evening in Texas.Redistricting
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93118,00.html>is apparently not the
only topic that promptsunusual legislative procedure
<http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/26/dems-approach-abortion-victory-special-session-wan/#liveblog>in
Austin.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D52196&title=An%20unusual%20filibuster&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> |Comments Off
--
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130626/f135f057/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130626/f135f057/attachment.png>
View list directory